|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Hey Thebruce, why are you creating separate articles for the images? You know that you can post info on the image pages themselves (ex: on http://halo.wikibruce.com/Image:Slide_Ref070107.jpg). [[User:Slade24|Slade24]] 08:44, 22 June 2007 (MST)
| + | hey something i noticed about the glyph |
| − | ----
| + | |
| − | yes, but it accomplishes two things: 1) reduces the load on parsing the pages (especially the Outline page) and 2) allows additional related information to be included along with the image. LInking straight to the :Image:XXX page only displays the image with limited description. Displaying the thumbnail does the same. Linking to the page itself (or using the thumbnail when necessary) allows all that information to be located in an easily referrable location. And for images, the full image can still be displayed as if viewing the Image:XXX page.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Plus it's much easier to give someone the url to http://halo.wikibruce.com/StarImage1.jpg or http://halo.wikibruce.com/Array_Recorder_Data.txt for instance, and be shown all relevent known information including the file itself.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | - thebruce ;)
| + | |
| − | ----
| + | |
| − | Just curious, how does it reduce server load?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I can kinda see the benefits of creating a page for the image as far as making the info easier to edit. However, you can edit the summary of the "Image:" pages, and I would assume (haven't tried it yet) that you can essentially add full article text there, it will just happen to appear below the image. Heck, the page even shows the metadata at the bottom.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The problem I see with your method is that we end up with two pages for the same thing, so users may end up confused as to which one to post to. Additionally, the thumbnails automatically link to the "Image:" pages, not to your hand-made pages.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[User:Slade24|Slade24]] 09:02, 22 June 2007 (MST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ----
| + | |
| − | 1) server load: parsing wiki text. The Outline page is enormous, and I'm already considering breaking it up. the less wiki code is used, the fewer image resizings need to be done, the better. The cache is helpful, but it's not the problem solver, especially when there's enormous bandwidth and traffic usage.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 2) editing the Image: summary pages is still nowhere near as flexible as simply linking to the page created to document anything and everything about the file itself, and the page content can be designed however one wishes. The "two pages for the same thing" is simply an issue of organizing the data. With the size of the Outline page, it's much easier on the website to ''not'' include all data and display all images on the single page, but offer summarized information and simple links to the content itself. For specific information, users will know where to link to - the subject in question. The Outline page should only be linked to when people are referring to the timeline, not specific individual subject matter. That may very well be what dramatically increased the traffic - the enormous length of the Outline page, the amount of wiki code needing parsing, and the amount of pure page requests coming to that specific page. If anyone wants to link straight to the image itself, that can still be done via the Image: links - but the links being used are standard wiki pages to display all documented information regarding the file and its contents.
| + | |
| − | ----
| + | |
| − | What I meant by "two pages for the same thing" concerned the images. You end up having a page (ex: http://halo.wikibruce.com/StarImage1.jpg) and then another page (ex: http://halo.wikibruce.com/Image:StarImage1.jpg) for an image. If a user clicks on a link you have made, they get directed to the former. If a user clicks on a thumbnail, they get directed to the latter. If you assume that the advantages you get by having a more modifiable page for the former outweighs the disadvantage of having some links go one way and some the other (not to mention that not all of the images/files have their own pages yet), then I guess there is no problem.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I realize that having excessively long pages isn't good for your server, or for readability. By all means each article should be focused and the outline should remain just that, and outline. To that extent, though, why are there three different summary pages?
| + | |
| − | ----
| + | |
| − | * if a user clicks a thumbnail, the expected response is the full image.
| + | |
| − | * typical wiki link format is accepted that Image: goes to the image, and regular page links view a page dedicated to the topic at hand. I wouldn't have a thumbnail point to an information page (and that's not how the thumbnail command works) - that's what regular links are for, otherwise the link to the information page one might put in the caption to the thumbnail. I would vastly prefer to keep to generally understood standards - Image: / Media: links should go to the file itself, and page links go to informational pages regarding the topic.
| + | |
| − | * As is typical with ARG wiki's, there are pages that focus on various displays of known information. The [[Outline]] page would otherwise be considered the full chronological Timeline of events - at the moment it's vastly overpopulated. Then there's typically a reverse-chronological recent events type listing, usually more terse, making it easier to first see what's most relevent - recent news. Then usually a a page sometimes called the 'trailhead' page or 'story so far' which is a readable (typically not point form) description of the story, that doesn't force people to view everything in detail or every event that's occured. Right now the 'Story so far'/Outline page is actually accomplishing two things, which may very well be a large factor in the cpu usage. It's the event ouline, and it's detailing everything.
| + | |
| − | : Ideally, another form of content would use templates and include data from sub-pages in parent pages, but that also increases cpu parsing time, and potentially confuses people because clicking an edit link might not show the content they actually want to edit, but rather the template link itself.
| + | |
| − | * Ultimately, how the wiki (ARG wiki's at least) are formed depends on amount and type of information within. This one started out smaller, and will be moving to a more complex storyline and site map, so the 'news' pages will be adjusted accordingly.
| + | |
| − | :So, 1) Chronological event outline, linking to detail pages (possibly including some detail if it helps understand the trail) 2) Reverse chronological 'latest updates' (more useful the longer an ARG runs) and 3) Story so far summary (in some cases, depending on the length of the ARG, a long ''and'' a short version).
| + | |
| − | :Yes it means more to keep up to date, but who needs more work? Those offering the information to the public, or public themselves? Obviously the former. :)
| + | |
| − | --[[User:Thebruce|thebruce]] 10:47, 22 June 2007 (MST)
| + | |
| − | ----
| + | |
| − | Sounds good to me. Keep up the good work.
| + | |
| − | [[User:Slade24|Slade24]] 10:56, 22 June 2007 (MST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == hey something i noticed about the glyph ==
| + | |
| | | | |
| | i was looking at the glyph and i saw a couple of things in it. the first is that it seems as though it is a diagram of thr galaxy and also shows the firing radius of the halos. Also in the new starimage that is shown from server 05 the glyph has changed a little bit, there is a small cirlce oustide the rings that may suggest that the small circle is earth because it is out of the blast radius.i also believed it could be the symbol for the Ark as seen in the announcement trailer where all the arms raise from the ground,the arms could be the small 4 arms seen in th glyph. | | i was looking at the glyph and i saw a couple of things in it. the first is that it seems as though it is a diagram of thr galaxy and also shows the firing radius of the halos. Also in the new starimage that is shown from server 05 the glyph has changed a little bit, there is a small cirlce oustide the rings that may suggest that the small circle is earth because it is out of the blast radius.i also believed it could be the symbol for the Ark as seen in the announcement trailer where all the arms raise from the ground,the arms could be the small 4 arms seen in th glyph. |
i was looking at the glyph and i saw a couple of things in it. the first is that it seems as though it is a diagram of thr galaxy and also shows the firing radius of the halos. Also in the new starimage that is shown from server 05 the glyph has changed a little bit, there is a small cirlce oustide the rings that may suggest that the small circle is earth because it is out of the blast radius.i also believed it could be the symbol for the Ark as seen in the announcement trailer where all the arms raise from the ground,the arms could be the small 4 arms seen in th glyph.
